Memorandum of Law lays bare the hoax that is the Internal Revenue Code
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial (not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.
THIS INCLUDES THE FACT THAT TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT ARE CORPORATIONS
Breakthrough Memorandum of Law obliterates in 20 pages the fraud that has made the 3,837-page Internal Revenue Code a monolith of impenetrability. General knowledge of the contents of the Memorandum ultimately will result in withdrawal of cooperation on the part of a sufficient number of former victims of the fraud so as to lead to its elimination.
The commercial artifice known as “income tax” has its origins in 1622 in Amsterdam, Holland, and is the creation of goldsmith-bankers of the private Bank of Amsterdam (est. 1609), parent bank of the private Bank of England (est. 1694), in turn, parent bank of the private Federal Reserve (est. 1913), and whose principals are the collective architect of the Internal Revenue Code and, in this country, sole beneficiary of the object thereof: revenue from collections of income tax (see Memorandum for evidence and proof).
When principals of the private Bank of Amsterdam in 1622 fail to sell the Dutch government on the idea of income tax they decide to procure their own government and country and thereafter hire Oliver Cromwell, finance and foment the English Revolution, orchestrate the execution of King Charles I of England, and install their own puppet, the Dutch prince, William III of Orange, on the British throne.
William’s most important act is the granting, on July 21, 1694, of the charter of incorporation of “The Governor and Company of the Bank of England,” the world’s first state-sanctioned “fractional reserve banking” institution, allowing the bank to masquerade as a department of government (“Bank of England”) and circulate (lend) its own promissory notes, each of which bears the bank’s promise to pay to the bearer on demand a certain quantity of gold, but for which there is no gold in the bank’s vaults. The arrangement permits the private Bank of England to loan its own paper currency at no cost to itself (i.e., Monopoly™ money) under the protection of the government; to wit:
“The bank hath benefit of the interest on all moneys which it creates out of nothing.” William Paterson, founder of the Bank of England.
“It [the Bank of England] coined, in short, its own credit into paper money.” James E. Thorold Rogers, Professor of Economics, Oxford University.
The difference between the promissory notes of the private Bank of England and Federal Reserve Notes of the private Federal Reserve is that Fed bankers did away with the promise-to-pay-gold nuisance a long time ago (House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933), having swindled and shipped to England and Germany nearly all of America’s gold between 1916 and 1932.
Enjoying a monopoly as they do, today’s banks “loan” computer-keypad keystroke entries of digits, called “credit” (modern equivalent of the Bank of England’s hollow promissory notes), at no cost to themselves. As explained by the senior government banking official, then-Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson:
“[W]hen a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. This money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”
The Federal Reserve banking system cannot endure without constant extraction, by way of collection of income tax by the Internal Revenue Service to hide the fraud of inflation, of a huge percentage of the digits created and injected into circulation by banks in the loan process; hence the need for the overwhelming complexity of the Internal Revenue Code and heartlessness of those who enforce its provisions. Notwithstanding the best-laid plans of the architects thereof, however, and efforts of their enforcers, no one can stop a grass-roots movement and anyone can disabuse himself of the hoax in the pages of the attached Memorandum.
 J. De Vries and A. Van der Woude, The First Modern Economy: Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy, 1500–1815 (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1997), p. 107.
 A. Andréadès, History of the Bank of England 1640 to 1903, Fourth Edition (Reprint), Christabel Meredith, translator (Frank Cass & Co., Ltd.: London, 1966), pp. 59-65, quoted in David Astle, The Babylonian Woe: A study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day (Published privately: Toronto, 1975), p. 140.
 Eustace Mullins, The World Order: Our Secret Rulers, Second Edition, 1992 Election Edition (Ezra Pound Institute of Civilization: Staunton, Va., 1992), p. 102.
 William Paterson, quoted in Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations: A Financial Study of English History, First American Edition (Longmans, Green & Co.: New York, 1936), p. 30.
 James E. Thorold Rogers, The First Nine Years of the Bank of England: An Enquiry Into a Weekly Record of The Price of Bank Stock from August 17, 1694 to September 17, 1703 (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1887), p. 9, quoted in Andréadès (supra, fn. 2), p. 82.
 Robert B. Anderson, quoted in “How Much Will Your Dollar Buy – Interview with Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson,” U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 1959, pp. 68-69.
Memorandum of Law, August 10, 2015
Supreme Court denies the petition—but because of extraordinary intervening circumstances the case is not over.
The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial(not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.
Notwithstanding this legal fact—which no one denies—the Supreme Court on June 8, 2015, issued an order denying certiorari.
This means that there is some other overriding non-constitutional (statutory) factor—unknown to Petitioner at time of filing of the petition but known by all bench officers involved in this case—that allows the Justices to approve of the judgment of the appeals court affirming the judgment of the district court despite the fact that the district court is a territorial court with no jurisdiction in Texas (where Petitioner resides).
Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that under certain extraordinary conditions a petition may be presented a second time, through a “Petition for Rehearing.”
Such conditions have arisen since the original filing April 29, 2015.
Wherefore, Petitioner on June 30, 2015, filed a Petition for Rehearing.
The Petition for Rehearing, though only 14 pages in length, is comprehensive and reveals, among other things:
- On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to exercise jurisdiction, despite the fact that Petitioner resides (and Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over which the court has jurisdiction;
- The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American nontaxpayers into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes no matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure whereby any such American can reverse the process, extinguish the implied contract, and be relieved of liability to Federal income taxes;
- The precise meaning of the definition of the most important statutory term in existence, around which literally everything else revolves: “United States”;
- The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory construction (used by Congress to legislate the law into existence and every Federal judge and magistrate and Supreme Court Justice to interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to determine the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated, or confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
- Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the district judge is not an impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly working in its behalf to defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:
kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359
There are two kinds of federal trial courts: those of general jurisdiction (territorial, personal, and subject-matter jurisdiction) and those of limited jurisdiction (subject-matter jurisdiction only).
Everyone is familiar with federal rules and regulations: Code of Federal Regulations, United States Code, Internal Revenue Code, P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), National Defense Authorization Act, etc.
The only federal courts authorized by the Constitution to hear civil or criminal matters brought against individual Americans for alleged violation of federal rules or regulations are courts of general jurisdiction.Today, every federal court located within the respective exterior limits of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union, e.g., Arizona, Florida, Nebraska, etc., is a court of general jurisdiction.The problem is that the only geographic area in which federal courts of general jurisdiction are authorized by the Constitution to exercise jurisdiction is federal territory; e.g., District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.
There is no constitutional authority for a federal court of general jurisdiction to hear a civil or criminal matter against any American who resides and is domiciled in geographic area occupied by one of the 50 freely associated compact states of the Union—and no one can produce any such authority.
Notwithstanding this discrepancy: Federal courts of general jurisdiction now blanket every state in the Union and prosecute individual Americans residing there for alleged civil or criminal violation of federal rules and regulations—such as the Internal Revenue Code.
The within petition displays incontrovertible legal evidence and proof of (1) felony(fraud, i.e., gross negligence), by reason of dereliction of the jurisdictional provisions of the Constitution, and treason to the Constitution, by reason of usurpation of exercise of jurisdiction in extra-constitutional geographic area, on the part of every federal judge of every federal court located within the Union, and (2) no jurisdiction for the district court of first instance to hear this matter against Petitioner for alleged violation of the Internal Revenue Code.
THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH WHOSE LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THIS SITUATION.
The ignorant layman’s comprehension of law is “THOSE WHO HAVE THE POWER”, so what we have here, “in a laymen’s mind is” an incomprehensible struggle between those who have power, and someone who does not, but believes he is not subject to their authority. For those of us with limited intellect, it is like being confronted by a three hundred pound professional wrestler demanding I cannot deny his authority. Just what the hell am I going to do? The bottom line is, America has been hijacked by people who have enough money power to buy millions of assistants and enforcers, and invents their own legal system only they understand, so now they have us by the short hairs, and we have no weapons with which to fight back. Dear readers you have to admire these folks who are prostrate on their backs with a three hundred pound judge on their face. When you refuse to obey, you wind up dead or imprisoned. It takes a lot of guts to fight these low life monster scumbags!
MAY THE LORD OF HOSTS BE WITH THEM!